Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cthulhu]

D&D is fun. Especially when you decide to modify a random unrelated creature to fit a role that, thematically, would be far better served by an existing creature, because you know that once you're done the mechanics will be so much better and you can always just use the exact same description and roleplaying as you would for the existing one. A bit of tinkering and suddenly, a nymph is an angel! Also, not the slutty kind. Not that that's much of a stretch, but it's the one I just did, so it's the obvious example.

That's one of the big draws to 4e.  Mechanics and fluff are completely divorced.  It's trivial to take a monster, swap some keywords around, modify some moves and stats, and have a completely unique monster that no one will recognize as being derived from something else.

[Solifuge]

Much like race, religion, or sexual orientation, as a writer you should never let gender define a character. It's an aspect of a character, but not the reason about which all their behaviors and plots orbit. I remember writing a research paper on homosexuality in sitcoms, and how often it becomes the defining aspect of the character; the majority of their quirks, actions, and gags are tied to the fact that they are gay. Flat characters and all that. Whenever I write, unless it's fundamental to the character's story, I try to pick Gender and such after I have a good idea of who the character is.

Speaking of writing, I've been throwing together a Mouse Guard mini-campaign for my gaming group to play over the next few weeks. They'll be dealing with reapplying the scent-border that keeps predators out of mouse lands, during the Spring thaw. I'm still working out a few plot twists, but I have a lovely bit of investigation-style intrigue planned. I'm really looking forward to it!

[fqllve]

Much like race, religion, or sexual orientation, as a writer you should never let gender define a character. It's an aspect of a character, but not the reason about which all their behaviors and plots orbit. I remember writing a research paper on homosexuality in sitcoms, and how often it becomes the defining aspect of the character; the majority of their quirks, actions, and gags are tied to the fact that they are gay. Flat characters and all that. Whenever I write, unless it's fundamental to the character's story, I try to pick Gender and such after I have a good idea of who the character is.

I absolutely agree with the first part. Tying personality with other features like sex or religion is just a cliched and predictable way to write at best and terribly offensive at worst.

I think it's okay to come up with that stuff first though as long as you don't shackle yourself to it. Personally I like to have a general image and background for the character then let their personality evolve through the needs of the narrative.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Vector]

I want to talk more about fiction, but I just finished my first full cup of coffee and am currently unimaginably high off of it.

This is fucking ridiculous~ <3 <3 <3

[Tellemurius]

I want to talk more about fiction, but I just finished my first full cup of coffee and am currently unimaginably high off of it.

This is fucking ridiculous~ <3 <3 <3

dude give me some of that!

[Vector]

I want to talk more about fiction, but I just finished my first full cup of coffee and am currently unimaginably high off of it.

This is fucking ridiculous~ <3 <3 <3

dude give me some of that!

What, can't you get your own damned cup of coffee?  It's just normal coffee, and I have no caffeine tolerance.

<3

[Duke 2.0]

 I think a character dealing with those aspects of themselves is just fine. There is a lot of conflict involved with those traits, and it would be a shame to avoid them. Yes they should not be defining traits of the character, but just because their main conflict involves one of those traits doesn't mean they are defined by it.

[Tellemurius]

I want to talk more about fiction, but I just finished my first full cup of coffee and am currently unimaginably high off of it.

This is fucking ridiculous~ <3 <3 <3

dude give me some of that!

What, can't you get your own damned cup of coffee?  It's just normal coffee, and I have no caffeine tolerance.

<3

Aww i thought it was something special XD

So yes today i bought me Mountains of Madness, Call of Cthulhu and a Alex Rider book.

[fqllve]

I want to talk more about fiction, but I just finished my first full cup of coffee and am currently unimaginably high off of it.

This is fucking ridiculous~ <3 <3 <3

To the New Topic button?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Don't worry Telle, I can tell you how to get powerful coffee. Now, go and order what's called "Cuban Coffee". It is very important that you drink this by the quart when you obtain it, otherwise it won't _{^{be hilarious}} work properly.

[Vector]

What?  No, that's something that made me happy today.

I don't think I need a new topic for "I just had coffee for the first time" or "Things that made you caffeinated today"



The thing I find interesting about this sexuality discussion is that nowadays, we define our sex and gender (many of us do, anyway) as the deepest, most important part of ourself, so that in many ways it makes sense to write a character around that.

Why we do that?  Go read A History of Sexuality, by Foucault.  It's extremely enlightening.

[Mindmaker]

Oh boy.
In that case you should probably pass on enegry drinks.
...
Or make an experiment out of it 

[Solifuge]

I think a character dealing with those aspects of themselves is just fine. There is a lot of conflict involved with those traits, and it would be a shame to avoid them. Yes they should not be defining traits of the character, but just because their main conflict involves one of those traits doesn't mean they are defined by it.

I'm right there with you, Duke. There are certainly stories about gender, or other similar aspects of their personhood, that ought to be told and explored. Still, there's a line between that and a flat character who is JUST that aspect, where everything they do is ultimately defined or tied to that one thing.

Spoiler: Also, joining the not-edition-war (click to show/hide)

Still, I tend to prefer 3.5. I feel like the divide between mechanics and fluff went too far; there's a certain sweet spot between being too rigid and being too generic, and 3.5 comes closer to that than 4e for me. There's other reasons, (monster creation, for instance, seems to have a touch more verisimilitude in my mind) but I'm not so much of a fanboy as to dismiss 4e as worthless, because it's definitely got some pros. I just don't mind the extra work as a DM in 3.5 unless I'm running sessions more than once a week, and I try to manage the game to eliminate some of the balance issues, although at this point I have so many houserules that I had to write an index because it's just not fair to the players otherwise.

3.5 is definitely closer to the sort of story-focused games I enjoy running or playing, while 4e feels better suited to people who play it mainly for the tactical combat scenarios. I tend to tweak the setting a great deal, as well as the rules, to better suit the feel and style of the game anyway, so the system rarely matters a great deal to me.

On a related note, I've never found a representation of magic in a game system that felt dangerous and unpredictable enough to emulate the Old World magic that pops up in folklore and fairytales, so I've been toying around with a Faustian sort of thing for my current campaign world that's satisfying me so far.

PS. Vector, I think fqllve meant to start a new topic about fiction and plots and such... not coffee.

[Tellemurius]

thank god i looked on google first than running straight to my co-op >_>